This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
I
my
year cut in take-home pay. It meaflS will get $3,409 per year less than ^ contemporaries who are married. means I will make a gross $19.2 ' per year for a three-year job after s'*
Commander F. J. Glaeser, U. S.
Our One True Strength
Two recent incidents have given me a new perspective into some of the reasons many of our best Navy personnel are leaving the service.
At a large meeting of regional ombudsmen, the wife of a chief petty officer expressed her distress and embarrassment at being notified that her children qualified for a school free lunch program because of her husband’s low income. She said she no longer felt the pride which had sustained her through so many endless deployments and could not continue to justify these separations to her children with ideals of honor and service to a nation which no longer cares.
The second incident occurred as I escorted a congressman visiting an aircraft carrier at sea. During a meeting with about 20 crew members from the congressman’s home district, the congressman opened the proverbial “can of worms” by asking how they were being treated, what their problems were, and how he could serve them. (What answers would you expect on a hard-used, cramped, quarter-century-
Nobody asked me either
Lieutenant Mark T. Brown, U. S.
The Reasons They Give . . .
And the REAL Reason
There are lots of reasons for resignations listed on those letters ro Washington. But if each of them doesn’t say, “The Navy doesn’t pay enough!”, then the author is not telling the truth. Inadequate pay is not just one of the reasons for opting to leave the service: it is the reason. Everything else is secondary.
Very few people will state the reason in their resignation letters because
old CV weeks before a major deployment?)
From all the married men who spoke, there was only one direct and unequivocal protest: the Navy was not paying them enough to support their families with dignity and in a safe and healthy environment. They didn’t talk about crowded berthing or family separation; instead, they spoke of electric bills, fuel oil, and rent.
As a group, both married and single, there were two other universal complaints. First, why won’t the Navy buy reliable and functional systems and stop contractors from delivering shoddy equipment? (Specifically identified to the bewildered congressman were numerous radars, communications systems, and computers.) Second, if the Navy can’t help buying “junk,” why couldn’t the Navy at least provide the parts and test equipment so desperately needed to make things work properly?
We could philosophize at length on the character, temperament, and simplistic logic of individuals who stand up in front of a group to complain or seek out their congressman.
,but...__________
Navy
they are afraid of harassment, bad fitness reports, unfavorable work references, poor recommendations for the reserves, or any number of other real and valid reasons. So don’r be misled—pay is the real issue, rhe most important issue.
My situation is the norm, not the exception. I am a single, surface warfare lieutenant with more than six years service being ordered from shore duty to the Surface Warfare School’s Department Head Course, and then to my three-year department head tour.
But what struck me in both situations were the two common threads:
► Income so low that it results in losso personal dignity and creates worries about the welfare of families left behind
► Disillusionment of people who joined to serve, who take justifiable pride in their efforts, and who expect sacrifices but not to the point of unreasonableness.
Recent world events have provided us with two brilliantly contrasting eX' amples of military struggle. The magnificently equipped army of the Shah of Iran proved a hollow shell in the conflict of men’s spirits and wills- 0n the other hand, determined bands of ragged Afghan rebels continue to bloody the monolithic but uninspife Soviet dreadnought.
We too may ultimately fail in some not so distant trial of arms—as may have been the case in the recent attempt to rescue the hostages being held in Iran—if we continue to ign°re the basic premise that the true strength of this nation and its arrne forces is found in its men and womerl and, to a lesser extent, in the soph'stl cation of its hardware.
What does that mean to me financially? It means I lose my BAQ to back to sea to the most demanding’ difficult, and time-consuming j°^ j have yet had in the Navy. It mean5 will get "adequate government quilf ters" (one half of a 12 by 6 foot roof0’ one half of a closet, one desk, one ^ chair, and one bed) and a $2,710 P
86
Proceedings / Jun®
108°
years of experience with the same company, which previously paid me ~ ’ 132 per year after only four years "ith the company.
' can hardly wait until I make commander and get a CO job! Then I ^et my very own head and a S3,405 'Xr year pay cut! And to top it off. I'll
j'et SCr|t to one of the highest cost of living,
cost of housing areas in the cmire country-—San Diego, Long c-ach, San Francisco, Pearl Harbor, NewPort, or Norfolk.
, Combine that with my 15% real 'nc°me loss due to RAQ and a conser- ar've K)% because of inflation, and I atT1 looking at a 25% pay cut just to ray in the Navy!
{y orders should read: "Go directly u sea. Do not pass Go. Do not collect x- Tighten your belt. Smile, you are being given the opportunity to make a further personal financial sacrifice in the behalf of your country."
Is it any wonder that we have retention problems? Civilian industry financially rewards people in demanding jobs. The Navy financially cripples them!
We’ve all poured our heart out to our boss, spouse, chaplain, or kid and asked, "Right?” only to be told, "I'm sorry, I wasn’t listening. " Nobody listens any more. But a few do read. If nobody seems to care what you think about anything, perhaps you ought to contribute to "Nobody asked me, hut ..."
Maybe what you have been saying isn’t worth listening to. But, if it is, we may print it and pay you $50.00. If it isn’t, you’ll feel better for having got it off your chest.
I know the Chief of Naval Operations repeatedly pleads for an equitable solution to the Navy pay situation, yet the President and Congress turn deaf ears. What does it rake to make them comprehend the simple facts of life set forth here and their devastating adverse impact. Certainly insensitive, archaic, and ill-informed comments, such as “When I was in the Navy, pay wasn’t an issue," won’t get anyone our votes; they will only ensure our resignations.
Book Reviews
A,a.'a^ Challenge and Western ,, lar>ce Options
l ' h. Nirze, Leonard Sullivan, )r., and
the
Hi
°Vii
fCl,ring the Seas; The Soviet
^fhntic Council Working Group on \VtUr'ng the Seas. Boulder, CO.:
Press, 1979. 464 pp. Illus.
' 00 ($21.60), S 12.00 ($10.80)
Kiper , 11'vecl by Thomas H. Et/old
W'ith
^ /r»w Yale University, Dr.
\\’ac ,s Professor of Strategy at the Naval ii,.jl^'"^l'Se. Newport. Rhode Island. He has a?i,i l’! n,u* m'iewed widely on topics in defense ‘Mnnacy.
Tic
hiSfls arr>bitious work surveys the ()fj,r'es, traditions, and capabilities 'i an^ NATO navies against the eC() ' r°P contemporary political, T|ia°rr|ic, and technological trends. ^ analysis is balanced; the judg- krn are sophisticated; the prose is rkab|y good. In all, it may be the
for . .
hriCpera,'s on ordering hooks and special 611^ See the Rook Order Service nore in rhe Interest department.
most important work on navies and naval issues published in the West in several decades. Without doubt, it is the most important book dealing with rhe present-day naval scene since Admiral Sergei G. Gorshkov’s Sea Power of the State (Naval Institute Press, 1979) reached Western readers.
A brief listing of chapter topics will indicate the breadth of this study: the role of rhe sea in world power relations, Soviet naval evolution, the Soviet fleet today, allocation and missions of the Soviet Navy, Western maritime interests (perhaps the single most valuable chapter in the entire work), implications of Soviet maritime capabilities, the evolution of the U. S. Navy, allocation and missions of U. S. and allied naval forces, comparative allied-Soviet force levels (including merchant marine, bases, and naval components), projected alliance force and technology requirements, anticipated budget constraints, a simplified quantitative analysis of the sea-lane defense problem, an overall assessment of the naval/maritime balance, and, finally, findings and recommendations.
It is impossible in this space to do any real justice to the quality of discussion and analysis of the many vital topics considered in this volume. In its most salient findings, the Working Group contends that “the Soviet Union ... is now capable of seriously interfering with essential shipping and challenging other Western uses of the seas. . . . the West must make renewed commitments to maintaining a favorable naval balance.” For it was because of such a naval balance, the Working Group suggests, “that the postwar balance of power almost defied the logic of distance and geography.”
The Working Group further recommends, among more detailed suggestions, (1) an improved understanding of the "need for capable naval forces in the Pacific in the event of a ‘NATO war,’ ” that is, a critique of the so-called "swing strategy,” (2) alliance development of “numerically larger navies of less expensive ships,” (3) increased prepositioning of military equipment and national economic
ce
CeeSitigs / June 1980
87